Blog Stats

Halo GONE

Forget the “Messiah” talk. Forget talk of a “tarnished halo”. That thing is gone…kaput!

I think we can stop being intimidated by the holier than thou candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. It turns out he is just your average, run-of-the-mill, lying, spinning, equivocating, making it up as he goes along, hypocritical, Democrat. And all the adulation from MSM hacks like Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann ain’t gonna hide that increasingly obvious truth.

Hypocritical:

The Reverend Wright controversy, (which the MSM has deluded itself into thinking Obama has successfully navigated past), has in fact seriously damaged his credibility with average Americans. A “post racial” person does not attend a race-baiting, demagogic church for nearly 20 years. Period. End of story.

“Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church.”

So we’re to believe that Obama attended this church, and was a personal friend of reverend Wright for 20 years, but by golly….it’s a good thing the reverend retired….he was just getting ready to quit…… Does he really think we’re that stupid??? Not the bimbos on The View…not the koolaid drinkers on the left….the rest of us. What an egregious insult to our intelligence.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obamawent after the “We’re not paying enough taxes to the government” vote today during a television interview in New York.

First, he said the Bush tax cuts ought to die. He likes that top marginal rate of 39%. Although the non-partisan National Journal recently declared him the most liberal of the 100 senators, Obama denied being a “wild-eyed liberal,” which wasn’t what the Journal called him, but it sounds good on TV where everything moves by so quickly.

Maria Bartiromo on CNBC’s “Closing Bell” asked, “Who should pay more and who should pay less?” Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the “wealthy” in his mind are those making more than $75,000.

“I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to…. provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,” he said. “For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.

Bartiromo asked him why he thinks raising taxes in a slowing economy would be a good thing. After all, the Democrats plan to argue economics as the biggest issue this fall, blaming the Bush administration policies for a housing crisis that has investors already pulling back to safety positions. Hiking taxes in that environment would shrink investment capital even further, creating more momentum for recession. What was Obama’s response?

“Well, look,” said Obama, “there’s no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office.”

Ed Morrissey:

Obama wants it both ways. He wants the Left to believe that he will start pulling more money out of the economy for a big slate of government programs, while he wants the middle class to believe that all of these programs won’t cost them anything — and meanwhile, his options remain “open”. It sounds more like “I’m making this up as I go along.”

It’s called economic illiteracy.

More Lying:

Charles Krauthammer at NRO, has an excellent article out today about Obama’s shameless mischaracterization of McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” comment. When McCain was asked at a campaign stop in New Hampshire about possibly staying in Iraq for 50 years, John McCain interrupted:

“Make it a hundred” — then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: “We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.” Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: “That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: “It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world.”

Now it’s very clear what he was talking about, here, and it’s the reasonable, sane, position to have on our presence in Iraq. Krauthammer drives this point home very well in his article. But the Obama campaign doesn’t want to talk about foreign policy in reasonable terms. They’ve found a really cool sound-bite and they’re running with it.

“It’s seldom you get such a clean shot,” a senior Obama adviser told the Politico:

“He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

“We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years” (Obama, Feb. 26).

What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?” (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: “John McCain is telling us … that we need to win even if it takes 100 years” (March 16).

As Lenin is said to have said: “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it “as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain’s national security credentials against him,” reports David Paul Kuhn of the Politico.